Is anyone worried about pressure now to change the Equality legislation?

[Unbeleevable]

There's a lot of wisdom in this forum - I wondered in the happy afterglow of the very clear-cut SC and EHCR pronouncements on biological sex … is there a risk that behind this, someone is pulling strings to publish strong statements hoping this will to trigger a surge of pro-trans-rights sentiment leading to a widespread acceptance the EA must change to encompass rights based on declared gender identity? And eventually a political mandate for the same?

In other words - we can’t expect the TRAs will give up. Have we won the battle but not the war?

I have long felt I have landed on the wrong side of history in my GC convictions - I can’t shake the feeling that the recent developments are too good to be true.

You have far greater faith in our legislators than I do.

i think it’s a very real risk that we end up with a law change, yes.

Have you seen how many seats the Liberal Democrat’s have and they are still fully committed to full-fat Trans rights?

I really feel we need to be putting our beady eyes on the Lib Dem’s and the Greens, not just targeting Labour. The Lib Dem’s have a very uncritical policy because they want to ‘be nice and be kind’.

Personally I see that yellow diamond sign of theirs and think nothing other than the Hazard Warning sign for Irritants,

Like minority groups who have faced a decade of concerted daily attack from the right-wing press, who have had their access to healthcare stripped down to nothing and outright banned for under-18's, who have just been ruled to not have functional legal access to gender recognition in violation of the law that has been in place for two decades to prevent a breach of EU conventions on human rights, who guidance has just recommended banning from public facilities they've safely used all their adult lives in some cases in order to make bigots more comfortable, and in some cases banned entirely from all facilities, and whose legal recognition in any form whatsoever is now coming under attack?

Tell me, when is the tidal wave of frock-wearing toilet rapists due? Any signs of it on the horizon yet? How many years has it been now?

Imagine trying to position a group as marginalised when that group managed to convince so many organisations and even government departments for a while, that their deliberate misinterpretation of the EA was the correct one?

I think that after more piss protests and the general emotional outpouring from so many male people, that the next opinion poll on trans rights that will probably be done next year will see a further decline in trust and support for the group. The 'vulnerable and marginalised' narrative is becoming a rapidly shrinking towel that was hiding the entitlement and misogyny all along. That is quite hard to hide now, the towel is miniscule.

Your inability to process how the needs of female people differ from your male needs is really very clear.

The marginalised and vulnerable sub section of people within the ‘trans’ category have been used as beards. They do exist, they are vulnerable and need protections. These are different to the protections that women need and need to address their specific needs and vulnerabilities.

The trans category is heterogeneous and failing to recognise this harms the most vulnerable sub group and enables harm to be perpetrated by other sub groups.

Unbeleevable

I join those other posters in saying that while the groups may try to get the EA changed, I doubt that they will succeed. But of course, it is the democratic right to attempt to.

Labour has learned already that they were wrong in so many ways to deplatform the women who were raising this alarm. They vilified women, they told them to leave.... when women were saying 'This is wrong!'. I doubt that Labour will forget what they did because women will not allow them to.

Both major parties have watched the US election where the Democratic Party fucked up and learned just how an issue dismissed by many as being not important, ended up being important and still not discussed.

And who the fuck wants to give any extra votes to Reform. No political party, I reckon.

The issue was that misogynist led campaign groups acting on long term strategies leveraged other group's oppression to their advantage and used their false interpretation of the law to enact change. The trust started to crumble in the Forstater and Bailey cases. That disclaimer about Stonewall's legal advice needing to be independently checked and seeing it play out in court, started the foundations cracking. This judgement has shone a beacon on the willful disregard of material reality and truth that those groups operated under.

Those groups did not even allow women to articulate the issues and have a discussion! They encouraged righteous virtue signalling politicians to silence women. Now women have forced the public to see what was happening. The court cases, the reviews.

The trust in those transgender support groups is gone except for the last remaining ideologically driven followers or very scared parents.

Now that women have forced the discussion of needs, I doubt that Labour will be able to ignore us, considering the polling is definitely turning towards the outcomes that women have been campaigning for. I don't think either major party will support a change that will be detrimental to women and girls in the EA. Too much research, too much knowledge is now available to even begin to support detrimental changes.

Yes. I know.

Did I get the tone wrong? I wasn’t intending to preach/tell but was sharing my own thoughts

Unsurprisingly the Greens are first out of the blocks in calling for the EHRC guidance to be withdrawn: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o

There's already been a not-zero number. Is there an upper limit on the number of women and girls you consider acceptable collateral damage in the cause of not hurting male feelings?

I doubt there is.

And once again but I'm sure not for the last time: you've lost no rights. You cannot lose what you were never entitled to.

You mean people who have opted themselves into a minority group, who could at any point opt out of that group, who have the same access to the NHS as every other UK citizen, who are protected under the equality act for their gender reassignment characteristic (although no one can actually define what this means in practice) and their biological sex, who the guidance specifies must not be left without access to facilities, who cannot be distinguished from member of their own sex by the general public in any meaningful way?

"It's been really obvious that they have not listened to trans people," she told BBC One's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme.

It was 'listening to trans people' that got us into this mess in the first place, leading to women and girls being discriminated against for the last decade or so.

No.

In a word.

Unsurprisingly the Greens are first out of the blocks in calling for the EHRC guidance to be withdrawn

While not giving any grounds why it should be. The only reason to withdraw guidance would be if it was legally wrong.

Increasingly getting the impression we need a TRA's Dummy's Guide UK Law works for all the TRA politicians and lawyers.

1. Parliament creates the laws
2. Judges interpret and apply the laws
3. Bodies like the EHRC explain how to operate within the law

Trying to stop the EHRC explaining how to stay within the law isn't going to make the law go away. You might as well stick a towel over your head.

If all we mere Mumsnetters can understand all the roles here - we've got quite a few bodies to withdraw incorrect guidance ourselves, and we've just managed to get the judges to sort out the incorrect interpretations - you'd think the leader of a party might get it?

From the article, at least Ed Davies seems to grasp that if they want change, it needs to be done through parliament.

"who have just been ruled to not have functional legal access to gender recognition in violation of the law that has been in place for two decades to prevent a breach of EU conventions on human rights"

I think you have been misled on this. There is no article in the European Convention on Human Rights that directly confers a right to gender recognition.

In the Goodwin case, the UK was found to be in breach of Article 8 which protects your right to respect for your private and family life, but that is not an absolute right. It is not realistic to expect that your sex can be kept private in all circumstances, and the right to privacy is balanced against the rights of others.

You can still obtain a GRC, but the original legislation made it clear that its application was limited. Legislation does not have the power to actually change your sex, and perhaps that is fundamentally reason that people are disappointed.

You are definitely protected under the PC of gender reassignment, and as with other PCs, it is certain that organisations will have to make reasonable accommodation to ensure that you aren't the subject of unlawful discrimination, so it seems likely that organisations will have to ensure that you have toilet provision.

No. I was agreeing with you. I usually agree with you.

I don't believe that what you posted was contradicting what I posted, so I was agreeing. But I am quite ill today so perhaps my own tone is more direct than usual as I am finding my head is foggy. I am sorry if you thought I was not agreeing with you.

"Withdraw the legal advice. Act outside the law."

The Greens. Brains of fucking Britain.

I wouldn't trust them to organise a piss up in a brewery.

The Greens had seats in which constituencies...
It doesn't matter if its legally illiterate. It wins the votes they are looking for.

This comment in the article “lots of people were confused and anxious about the guidance, for example over which toilet a trans man (biological woman) should use” is such rubbish. Nobody is confused. They just don’t like it

"Denyer also raised concerns that for lesbian associations or venues which wanted to include trans women, the advice appeared to say they would not be allowed to.
The guidance states that women-only or lesbian-only associations "should not" admit trans women, while men-only or gay men-only associations "should not" admit trans men."

'Appeared to say' doing a lot of work there.

The actual guidance is:

Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only and can be limited to people who each have two protected characteristics. It can be, for example, for gay men only or lesbian women only. A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women).

It means that an association can be limited to women only, but if it admits trans women it is not a women only association and therefore cannot exclude men.

It does not meant that the association must be women only, or that a mixed sex organisation cannot be limited in other ways.

If they are confused and anxious, rather than calling for the guidance to be withdrawn, perhaps bloody explain it.

Fuckwits.

Quite.

It CAN exist.

Without bullying, harassment, threats, loss of funding and other performative 'hate' for the crime of being women saying no to men.

That's the point.

And yes absolutely to no one is confused. Trying desperately to spread and create confusion, yes totally. I've not yet seen massed gibbering about what the word 'and' might implicate in the judgment that proves women can't say no to men or have any protections against their terrible behaviours, but I'll wait.

Sad but true.

Labour tried to play that game, and have lost some support because in government 2+2 must equal 4.

For parties like Reform and the Greens, it's easier to promise a world where 2+2=5.